In 2025, TP reviewers continue to make outstanding contributions to the peer review process. They demonstrated professional effort and enthusiasm in their reviews and provided comments that genuinely help the authors to enhance their work.
Hereby, we would like to highlight some of our outstanding reviewers, with a brief interview of their thoughts and insights as a reviewer. Allow us to express our heartfelt gratitude for their tremendous effort and valuable contributions to the scientific process.
Wang Chun Kwok, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Ahmad Anouti, University of Texas Southwestern, USA
Darrell O. Ricke, Molecular BioInsights, USA
Allison Kimball, Harvard Medical School, USA
Yusuke Hoshino, Ibaraki Children’s Hospital, Japan
Hyun Ho Kim, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Korea
Jonas Wolf, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Brazil
Nathan Wirtzfeld, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Belgium
Tam P. Sneddon, University of North Carolina, USA
Raouf Nassar, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Tiong Peng Yap, IGARD Vision Therapy Centre, Singapore
Thomas Wallach, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, USA
Sonal Bhatia, Medical University of South Carolina, USA
Lukasz Antkowiak, Medical University of Silesia, Poland
Mohamed R. Khalife, Nemours Children’s Health, USA
Priyam Pattnaik, University of Connecticut, USA
Srujan Ganta, Rady Children’s Hospital, USA
Grigorios Petrousis, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden
Kyle L. MacQuarrie, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, USA
Mina Ranjbaran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Iran
Smit Sibinga, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Kaya Kuru, University of Lancashire, UK
Masumi Kawashima, Yao Tokusyukai General Hospital, Japan
Jun Hirokawa, Miyazaki Dental Welfare Center, Japan
Kamsiyochukwu S. Daniel, Texas Children’s Hospital, USA
Kakusho Chigusa Nakajima-Ohyama, Nagoya City University East Medical Center, Japan
Matthew Dapas, Northwestern University, USA
Wang Chun Kwok
Dr. Wang Chun Kwok Herbert is currently working as Clinical Assistant Professor in the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include airway diseases including asthma, bronchiectasis and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. He was awarded the Li Shu Fan Fellowship for Internal Medicine to support his study in phenotyping and therapeutics of airway diseases. He was also awarded competitive research grant to support his research in respiratory medicine. Dr. Kwok was awarded the APSR 2024:HKLF Professor Wah-kit Lam Young Investigator Award, travel grant to KATRDIC 2024, Outstanding Author of JTD 2024, APSR Travel Award to the JRS Annual Meeting 2024, Assembly Education Award in the 26th Congress of APSR 2022, best oral presentation in the 8th APRC(2022), APSR Teaching Library Award (2019), best Abstract of the Assembly in the 22nd Congress of APSR (2017) and Professor Wah-kit Lam Young Investigator Award 2017/2018 in recognition of his research work. Learn more about him here.
TP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Kwok: To ensure the research work is conducted appropriately, peer review is needed. The reviewer will first examine if the research question is appropriate. The reviewers will also make sure the methodology is correct and advise for revision if appropriate. The presentation of the results is equally important, which will be assessed in the peer-review process. Lastly, the conclusion should be appropriate based on the results, which the reviewers have the responsibility to check on. Overall, peer review is needed to ensure that the research article is of adequate quality.
TP: What do you regard as a constructive/destructive review?
Dr. Kwok: Constructive review shall include non-biased constructive comments aiming at pointing out the problems of the research and suggest for improvement. Destructive review is usually making personal biased comments which cannot help to improve the research at all, such as giving comments saying the work is unsatisfactory without clear reasons.
TP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Kwok: Thanks for reviewing our works, which does not only improve the quality of the research, but also serves as a platform for us to have mutual communication and learn from each other.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Ahmad Anouti
Ahmad Anouti, MD, is a pediatric resident at the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) and Childrens Health Dallas in the Physician Scientist Training Program, where he studies pediatric liver disease. Prior to his current position, he was a postdoctoral research fellow at UTSW, working on several research projects focused on liver disease and transplantation. Dr. Anoutis’ research interests include pediatric liver transplant outcomes, biliary atresia, and Fontan associated liver disease. In his 2.5 years at UTSW, he has published 14 different manuscripts in several journals focusing on liver disease in both adult and pediatric patients. He has been involved in clinical, basic, and translational research. Additionally, Dr. Anouti is a biliary atresia and liver transplant patient himself and has been a strong advocate for the community, collaborating with organizations such as Biliary Atresia and Research Awareness (BARE), the Global Liver Institute (GLI), and the American Liver Foundation (ALF). Connect with him on X @anouti_ahmad.
TP: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Anouti: As a physician scientist in training, I fully appreciate the value and importance of peer review. This process plays a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy, quality, and credibility of research before publication. Reviewers assess the manuscript's methodology, data analysis, and conclusions to verify that the research is original, significant, and adheres to the field's ethical and methodological standards, thereby advancing the field. Peer review helps prevent the dissemination of flawed or fraudulent research, encouraging authors to meet high standards and maintain the integrity of the scientific record. It often provides constructive feedback, helping authors refine their work to clarify their arguments and findings, which enhances the overall quality of the published research. Despite the busy schedules of many researchers, the time and effort put into peer reviewing are invaluable as they provide insight into current work in the field while supporting both established and emerging researchers.
TP: What are the qualities a reviewer should possess?
Dr. Anouti: A good reviewer in the scientific peer-review process should possess several key qualities, including a knowledge of the field, objectivity, critical thinking, constructive feedback, confidentiality, and punctuality. Reviewers should have a good understanding of the subject matter and stay up to date on the latest developments to assess the accuracy and relevance of the research. While younger reviewers might not have the same level of expertise as their more seasoned counterparts, their basic scientific knowledge and eagerness to learn can provide a new perspective on novel and emerging research projects. It is crucial for reviewers to remain unbiased, evaluating manuscripts solely on scientific merit, and to apply critical thinking to thoroughly analyze the work, identifying any potential flaws. Providing clear, constructive, and actionable feedback is essential. Reviewers must also uphold the confidentiality of the review process, complete their reviews on time to respect publication timelines, and remain vigilant about potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism and data falsification. These qualities ensure that the peer-review process upholds high scientific standards and contributes positively to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
TP: Would you like to say a few words to encourage other reviewers who have been devoting themselves to advancing scientific progress behind the scene?
Dr. Anouti: Being a researcher is an intensely demanding job that requires considerable mental effort and resilience. While reviewing might sometimes seem like a misuse of valuable time, it is crucial for staying current with advancements and contributing to progress in the field. Stepping away from one's own projects to review a manuscript offers researchers a fresh perspective not only on the field at large but also on their own work. This can inspire new ideas and approaches that enhance their projects. Reviewing provides a genuine learning opportunity and access to the most relevant and up-to-date information available. This activity allows researchers to stay at the forefront of their field, gaining insights into the latest trends, methodologies, and findings. Additionally, many researchers experience frustration while waiting for feedback on their manuscripts, often due to delays caused by external reviewers. There is a general expectation for one's work to be reviewed accurately, ethically, and promptly. Therefore, it is only fair that researchers reciprocate by engaging in the peer-review process with the same level of diligence and speed. Doing so facilitates a more efficient and effective exchange of knowledge, helping to maintain the integrity of scientific research and accelerate the publication process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Darrell O. Ricke
Dr. Darrell Ricke is a principal scientist at Molecular BioInsights (previously at MIT Lincoln Laboratory). His research pursuits include human diseases, infectious diseases, medical countermeasures including vaccines, vaccine adverse events, advanced DNA forensics, and bioinformatics/ computational biology. He has recently published SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 research on clinical treatment, early cardiac pathology, thrombocytopenia, etiology of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, antibody dependent enhancement, and etiology of Kawasaki Disease. His DNA forensics solutions were a 2018 R&D 100 winner and a 2021 R&D 100 finalist, as well as a 2018 MIT Lincoln Laboratory Best Invention. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Ricke believes that reviewers should offer honest and unbiased feedback on the articles under consideration. Honesty is crucial as it ensures that the evaluation of the work is based on its true merits and flaws. Unbiased feedback helps in maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process, allowing the scientific community to rely on the reviews to determine the quality and validity of the research presented in the articles.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Ricke emphasizes the significance of data sharing in scientific writing. He believes that scientific writing is centered around presenting new insights, discoveries, and innovative methods. If an article is based on flawed data, it can lead to a lack of progress and unnecessary delays in the field. For smaller datasets, he suggests including them as supplemental data or releasing them in open-data repositories like Harvard Dataverse, which provides doi references for easy access and citation. He is also a strong advocate for making software tools open-source whenever possible, as this promotes collaboration and further development within the scientific community. By sharing data and tools, researchers can build on each other's work more effectively, accelerating the pace of scientific discovery.
Despite the heavy workload associated with being a scientist, Dr. Ricke sees value in peer review. He notes that as a reviewer, he can contribute in multiple ways. He can point out elements that can improve the article, identify key issues that are missing, and spot both infrequent errors and common mistakes. Additionally, the articles he reviews sometimes introduce new dimensions of problems that he has not previously considered, which is intellectually stimulating. To manage his time, he tries to accept invitations to review relevant articles. However, when he is unable to provide timely feedback, he declines the invitation, thus ensuring that the review process is not hindered by delays.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Allison Kimball
Dr. Allison Kimball is an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital with a clinical expertise in pituitary disorders and diabetes. She is interested in the interplay between endocrine dysfunction and psychiatric disease, and she conducts clinical research on hormonal determinants of mood symptoms and quality of life in patients with psychiatric disorders and pituitary disorders, including premenstrual dysphoric disorder, treatment-resistant depression, anorexia nervosa, and acromegaly. Additionally, Dr. Kimball is a passionate educator with an interest in student and trainee mentorship and well-being. She holds several leadership roles in both undergraduate and graduate medical education.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Kimball: Limitations of the existing peer-review system include the lack of a standardized and transparent review process, inherent biases that may affect how reviewers judge manuscripts, and insufficient time and training for reviewers. Formal guidelines should be developed for peer review with metrics to ensure that they are being followed, and reviewers should be blinded to the author names and affiliations until after an editorial decision is made. This may help to improve objectivity and transparency. Moreover, a high-quality review takes time to complete and is largely unincentivized, and identification of reviewers with scientific expertise can be challenging. One strategy to address this is for senior reviewers to invite junior colleagues to collaborate on reviews and to mentor them in the process.
TP: What reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Kimball: When providing criticism, it is critical that reviewers remain sensitive to the huge amount of time and effort that authors put into their research and in preparing the manuscript. Comments should be constructive, kind, and based on science. For manuscripts that are not accepted, comments made during peer review can be especially useful as authors seek to revise their manuscript or plan future research. A platform to allow discussion between authors and reviewers may be valuable in those cases.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Yusuke Hoshino
Yusuke Hoshino serves as the chief neonatologist at the Department of Neonatology, Ibaraki Children’s Hospital in Mito, Japan. His main area of interest is the respiratory management of preterm infants, with a specific emphasis on lung and diaphragm ultrasound. He obtained his PhD from the University of Tsukuba for his research on the application of lung ultrasound in neonatal care. In 2024, he was recognized with the Academic Paper Award from the Japan Society for Neonatal Health and Development. Currently, he is actively involved in the development of international evidence-based recommendations for Point-of-Care lung ultrasound (ICC LUS 2.0), a global initiative led by WINFOCUS. Connect with him on X @yusuke_hos.
According to Dr. Hoshino, peer review is crucial in the scientific domain. It acts as a safeguard for the quality, credibility, and integrity of scientific research. Serving as a vital checkpoint, it ensures that research findings are accurate, have a solid methodological foundation, and are conducted ethically. Through independent evaluations by experts in the relevant field, peer review contributes to the improvement of manuscripts. It helps in identifying errors or biases that might otherwise go unnoticed, thereby strengthening the overall scientific literature and upholding the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge.
An objective review, as Dr. Hoshino defines it, is one that assesses a manuscript strictly based on its scientific value, the soundness of its methodology, and its relevance to the field. It is free from the influence of personal opinions, affiliations, or biases. To maintain objectivity in his own reviews, he focuses on key aspects such as the clarity of the research question posed in the manuscript. He also examines the appropriateness of the study design and analysis methods employed, as well as the validity of the conclusions drawn. Throughout the review process, he makes an effort to be fair, offers constructive feedback, and shows respect for the authors' work, all of which contribute to an objective and helpful evaluation.
From a reviewer's perspective, Dr. Hoshino strongly believes that it is important for authors to adhere to established reporting guidelines like CONSORT and CARE when preparing their manuscripts. These guidelines provide a structured framework that significantly enhances the transparency, completeness, and reproducibility of research. By following these guidelines, authors can ensure that all essential information is included, which is vital for reviewers and readers to accurately assess the quality and reliability of the study. In his experience, manuscripts that comply with these reporting guidelines are generally clearer and more informative, making the review process more efficient and effective. This, in turn, benefits the entire scientific community by facilitating the dissemination of high-quality research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Hyun Ho Kim
Hyun Ho Kim is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Jeonbuk National University Medical School and a neonatology-specialized pediatrician. His research primarily focuses on neonatal intensive care, AI-driven predictive modeling, and data-based quality improvement for neonatal health outcomes. He has spearheaded numerous multi-institutional projects. These include real-time NICU monitoring systems and AI-powered clinical decision support tools designed for preterm and high-risk infants. His recent work encompasses the development of smart incubator platforms and regionally integrated care systems, with the aim of enhancing neonatal outcomes, especially in underserved areas.
Dr. Kim views peer review as a means to scientifically evaluate the merits and drawbacks of research, thereby enhancing the credibility and reliability of scientific findings. He emphasizes that reviewers from various relevant fields are essential for a thorough and detailed assessment, ensuring that research meets high-quality standards from multiple perspectives.
From a reviewer’s perspective, Dr. Kim emphasizes that sharing research data plays a critical role in ensuring the reproducibility and credibility of scientific findings. It is especially essential in large-scale, multi-center studies and big data research. In particular, reproducibility in big-data studies often requires external validation, and data sharing has become a fundamental element in enabling such processes. However, human subject data must be accompanied by strict adherence to ethical standards, including institutional review board (IRB) approval, which is not always easy to enforce. A key task for the scientific community moving forward is establishing a system that enables researchers to share data more easily while maintaining ethical compliance.
“Peer reviewing helps me stay up-to-date with the latest research trends and inspires my studies. It also gives me opportunities to learn from others' study designs and methodologies, both directly and indirectly, which ultimately improves the quality of my research,” says Dr. Kim.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jonas Wolf
Jonas Wolf is a distinguished biomedical scientist with academic honors, holding both a Master’s and PhD in Cellular and Molecular Biology Applied to Health. His expertise spans clinical analysis, molecular genetics, infectious disease diagnostics, epidemiology, biostatistics, and bioinformatics. As a researcher at Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), he manages and analyzes epidemiological data for various clinical care lines, calculates quality indicators for national health agencies, supports scientific research across HMV’s residency programs, and leads the Research Support Center as a technical consultant. Additionally, he teaches and coordinates the Biomedicine program at the Moinhos de Vento School of Health Sciences, contributes to curriculum development, serves as a content expert in MBA programs focused on healthcare management and value-based healthcare, advises postgraduate students, and is involved in scientific project design, statistical analysis, and article publication. Follow him on LinkedIn and ORCID.
Dr. Wolf emphasizes that in clinical research and academic experience, peer review is a vital step in the scientific process. It ensures research is reliable, accurate, and meaningful. Having other experts critically assess work—aiming to strengthen rather than fault—adds value, even for the most meticulous researchers. Peer review maintains scientific integrity, especially in healthcare where decisions impact patient lives; it holds the field accountable and drives continuous improvement. As a collaborative process, it fosters learning through idea exchange, building trust in science and the research community.
In Dr. Wolf’s opinion, reviewers bear the responsibility to enhance research quality, not just critique. Approaching manuscripts with fairness and respect is essential, recognizing the effort behind each paper. Focus should lie on the science: sound methodology, data-supported conclusions, and relevance/originality. Constructive feedback is equally important—helping improve papers through clearer writing, stronger arguments, or robust analysis. Reviewers must also acknowledge personal biases and limitations, openly admitting when expertise falls short. Ultimately, peer review thrives as a collaborative process rooted in integrity, objectivity, and a genuine drive to advance science.
“Balancing clinical, academic, and research responsibilities can be overwhelming at times. But I see peer review not as an extra task, but as a fundamental part of being involved in the scientific community. Just as others take the time to review and improve my work, I feel a responsibility to give back in the same way. What helps me is treating peer review as a structured activity, just like any research meeting or lecture. I usually block time in my schedule — often early in the day or late afternoon — when I know I can focus without interruptions. I also try to accept reviews only when I feel I have the right expertise and can dedicate the time the paper deserves. It’s definitely a challenge, but I genuinely enjoy the opportunity to engage with new ideas, reflect critically, and contribute to the advancement of good science. It’s also a way to keep learning continuously, which makes the effort worthwhile,” says Dr. Wolf.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Nathan Wirtzfeld
Dr. Nathan Wirtzfeld is a urologist currently practicing at Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc in Brussels, Belgium, with clinical experience in both adult and pediatric urology. His main clinical interests lie in endo-urology and minimally invasive techniques, with a particular focus on the management of urinary stones and benign prostatic hyperplasia, including laser treatments and office-based procedures. Trained in Belgium, Luxembourg, and France, he completed a university diploma in upper and lower tract endo-urology at Sorbonne University in Paris. Dr. Wirtzfeld has authored several peer-reviewed publications on diverse urological topics. His current research focuses primarily on mini-invasive prostate surgery and surgical learning curves in urinary stone disease. He serves as a reviewer for several international journals. Being passionate about surgical quality and collaborative research, he views peer review as both a scientific responsibility and a valuable opportunity for learning. Follow him on LinkedIn and ResearchGate.
TP: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. Wirtzfeld: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific progress. It ensures that research is conducted and communicated in a rigorous, accurate, and meaningful way. Beyond verifying the quality of a study, it helps shape the message so that results are interpreted clearly and responsibly. I see peer review as both a scientific responsibility and a form of academic dialogue. In that sense, peer review is both a quality filter and an opportunity for dialogue, a way to collectively advance medical knowledge with rigor and transparency.
TP: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Dr. Wirtzfeld: Being aware of our own biases is the first step. When I review a manuscript, I focus on the structure of the study, the clarity of the hypothesis, the appropriateness of the methods, and the strength of the interpretation. I avoid judging based on style, language, or institutional affiliation. That’s why I always approach a review with empathy and precision. The goal is to elevate the work, not to undermine it.
TP: Why is it important for research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Wirtzfeld: IRB approval is essential to protect the rights, dignity, and safety of research participants. It also ensures that the study complies with ethical and legal standards. When this process is omitted, the credibility of the research can be questioned, and more importantly, the safety of individuals may be compromised. Ethical oversight is not a formality but a foundation for trust in science. Researchers have a duty to uphold these principles not only to meet publishing standards but also to contribute to responsible, meaningful research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tam P. Sneddon
Tam P. Sneddon is a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. He received a DPhil in Clinical Medicine at the University of Oxford and an MRes in Bioinformatics at the University of York. Most recently, he completed the ABMGG Laboratory Genetics and Genomics (LGG) Fellowship and is Director of the UNC Clinical Genomic Analysis (GENYSIS) core facility. Past projects include leading the design and development of the dbVar database of large-scale genomic variants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, lead biocurator for the GigaDB data repository at the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) in Hong Kong, and gene nomenclature advisor for the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) in London. As a proponent for open-source genomic resources and publicly available data, Dr. Sneddon is also a project-long member of ClinGen and a contributor to ClinVar. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
A robust peer-review system, according to Dr. Sneddon, requires two or more reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest to ensure objective, bias-free assessment. Timeliness and confidentiality are equally critical: reviewers must balance thoroughness with efficiency to prevent undue publication delays, safeguarding the integrity of authors’ work throughout the process. This structure maintains scientific rigor while fostering a collaborative environment for knowledge exchange.
In Dr. Sneddon’s opinion, reviewers should approach manuscripts with empathy, acknowledging the effort invested in data generation and writing. Feedback must be constructive rather than overly critical, addressing concerns with solutions rather than dismissals. By focusing on enhancing study quality—such as clarifying methodologies or strengthening conclusions—reviewers uphold the field’s standards while supporting academic growth.
“Having been on both sides of submitting and reviewing manuscripts, I truly appreciate the efforts of dedicated reviewers who strive to hold us all accountable for our research and contribute to the high quality of the peer-reviewed literature which we all build, and rely upon, for our scientific knowledge,” says Dr. Sneddon.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Raouf Nassar
Dr. Raouf Nassar is an attending pediatrician and pediatric gastroenterology consultant at Saban Children’s Hospital Soroka University Medical Center, and a lecturer at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev’s Faculty of Health Sciences in Beer Sheva, Israel. After completing medical studies at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, he finished his pediatric residency at Saban Children’s Hospital and fellowships in pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Schneider Children's Medical Center and Saban Children’s Hospital. Currently, he is a senior clinical fellow in pediatric hepatology at King's College Hospital, London. His research focuses on pediatric gastroenterology—particularly hepatology and esophageal diseases—with an emphasis on disease epidemiology and ethnic differences.
Dr. Nassar thinks that peer review is essential for maintaining manuscript quality and accuracy, acting as a filter to identify biases and errors. Field experts evaluate studies, providing feedback to improve them. This process upholds high standards, promotes rigorous research, and safeguards the integrity of knowledge shared with the public, policymakers, and the research community.
In Dr. Nassar’s opinion, reviewers must assess the quality of resources and data, ensuring discussions and conclusions effectively convey the study’s message. They should also verify the absence of biases or misinformation to maintain scientific rigor.
“I allocate time to review during my academic schedule. Peer reviewing gives me the opportunity to read about the subject again and to be updated,” says Dr. Nassar.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Tiong Peng Yap
Dr. Tiong Peng Yap is a Senior Consultant at IGARD Vision Therapy Centre in Singapore. His expertise in pediatric vision and adult strabismus extends to neuro optometric rehabilitation, particularly in addressing vision-related learning challenges, and oculomotor dysfunction arising from brain injuries in both children and adults. He is actively involved in eye research and clinical practice concerning the treatment of functional visual deficits, including binocular vision, low vision and special-needs population. Besides attending to patients, he serves on the Editorial Review Board of Optometry and Visual Performance (OVP), and an Editorial Topic Coordinator on the Visual Rehabilitation of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion in Frontiers in Neuroscience. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry (FAAO), Fellow of the Australasian College of Behavioral Optometrists (FACBO), and he is the first person outside the US to receive Double Fellowships in Optometric Vision Development and Rehabilitation (FOVDR and FOVDR-A). Connect with him on LinkedIn.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Yap: I must admit that the existing peer-review system is indeed time consuming and not entirely perfect, but it remains a vital cornerstone of scientific publishing that ensures the quality and credibility of research articles. Expanding reviewer diversity broadens the perspectives of this journal, particularly including viewpoints from neurodevelopmental optometrists, such as myself, so as to bring in a unique and critical lens to child health research and childhood vision development. I am delighted to be selected for the Reviewer of the Month as the recognition empowers me and other reviewers to continue to evaluate the manuscripts critically and provide constructive feedback to the authors.
TP: What do you consider as an objective review?
Dr. Yap: I find an objective review free from prejudice, external influence and personal biases. When I conduct a peer review of a manuscript, I always work within my area of expertise, and ensure that the comments are helpful to the authors. To maintain objectivity, I would usually dive straight into the data, methodology and conclusions, and critically assess its strengths and limitations without making assumptions about the authors or their affiliations.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Thomas Wallach
Dr. Thomas Wallach is Chief and Fellowship Director of Pediatric Gastroenterology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York, with prior affiliations at UCSF, NYU, and Columbia University. As a translational researcher, he focuses on intestinal epithelial barrier homeostasis and regulation, employing combined clinical and translational techniques to study complex, multifactorial conditions. His work integrates epidemiology, bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing, and novel computational approaches. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Wallach emphasizes a healthy peer-review system should avoid adversarial dynamics and instead foster collaboration—focused on identifying value in research and strengthening it, rather than criticizing.
In Dr. Wallach’s opinion, reviewers must consider practical constraints like ethical limits and funding shortages, recognizing that no work is perfect and accepting “best feasible efforts”. Feedback should clarify how a study can add to the knowledge or why revisions are unfeasible, with a core goal of helping authors.
To fellow reviewers advancing science behind the scenes, Dr. Wallach says, “Thanks to all of you except for reviewers, you know who you are.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Sonal Bhatia
Dr. Sonal Bhatia has been an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the Shawn Jenkins Children’s Hospital and Medical University of South Carolina since 2023. She is board-certified in child neurology and epilepsy by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Her clinical and research interests encompass the management of complex genetic epilepsies, epileptic encephalopathies, infantile spasms, as well as healthcare disparities in epilepsy. She boasts numerous publications, along with poster and oral presentations. Additionally, she serves as an ad hoc reviewer for several esteemed journals. Connect with her on LinkedIn.
TP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Bhatia: Peer review improves and enhances the quality of publications in medicine, ensuring that the research maintains a high standard, is free of obvious biases and is devoid of plagiarism. A rigorous peer-review process is important as it shows that other experts in the field have agreed upon the work’s relevance, reliability and authenticity thus allowing it to be useful to readers as well as allowing the authors to make meaningful contribution to medical science.
TP: What do you regard as a destructive review?
Dr. Bhatia: A destructive review is downgrading instead of uplifting. It is overly dismissive of the work without providing constructive, meaningful feedback or directions to improve the quality of a research project. Doing medical research especially for full time clinicians and without funding is very challenging and a destructive review only dissuades scholars from walking that extra mile to take on scientific projects and contribute to medical literature.
TP: Why do you choose to review for TP?
Dr. Bhatia: TP is an esteemed journal indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central as well as other reputed databases that caters to all pediatric subspecialties which align with my interests. The journal maintains high standards to ensure publication of top-notch research articles. It is my honor and privilege to be able to review research articles for TP.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Lukasz Antkowiak
Dr. Lukasz Antkowiak is a PGY2 Resident and Research-Teaching Assistant at the Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland. His research focuses on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal canal tumor resection, incidentally found pediatric brain tumors, intraoperative imaging for low-grade glioma resection, targeted therapies for glioblastoma, and surgical techniques for Chiari Malformation Type 1. In 2023, he earned his PhD with a thesis on “Evaluation of treatment outcomes and prognosis in patients with ruptured arteriovenous malformations of the brain,” receiving awards from the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) and the Polish Ministry of Health. Learn more about him here.
Dr. Antkowiak emphasizes that peer review is critical for upholding the quality of published data and preventing the spread of false scientific evidence. It relies on qualified reviewers who rigorously assess a study’s novelty, methodological transparency, and appropriate use of literature—ensuring only credible research enters the scientific record.
Dr. Antkowiak views subjectivity and inconsistency in reviews as major flaws. He thinks that variability in scores, often stemming from reviewers’ incomplete field knowledge, can lead to false rejections of novel work or acceptance of redundant studies. The current one-sided process, where authors receive decisions without an opportunity to address reviews, exacerbates these issues. To improve transparency and quality, he advocates for dialogue between authors and reviewers, allowing authors to explain their study’s significance and fostering a more reliable, collaborative evaluation process.
“Whenever I accept a review invitation, I spend as much time as necessary to screen the entire paper thoroughly. I strive to meet the highest standards of the peer-review process to provide authors with the most accurate opinion. I strongly encourage reviewers to make their reports objective, providing a reliable background for every suggestion stated. Preserving the reliability and accuracy of every review report contributes to the advancement of the scientific literature worldwide,” says Dr. Antkowiak.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mohamed R. Khalife
Dr. Mohamed R. Khalife is a Research Fellow at Nemours Children’s Health in Wilmington, Delaware. His research focuses on how dynamic neural networks in the medial prefrontal cortex enable flexible learning and cognition, particularly following early-life neurological insults. He combines in-vivo single-unit electrophysiology with advanced neural network computational modeling to understand neuronal interactions at the levels of spike timing, functional connectivity, and population coding. His recent work highlights how developmental perturbations disrupt these network-level codes and how neuropeptide interventions can preserve adaptability. With broader interests in uncovering common neural network dysfunctions across neurological disorders and developing scalable tools to decode cognition from brain activity, Dr. Khalife is also committed to advancing reproducible neuroscience and building analytic frameworks bridging experimental and computational approaches. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
Dr. Khalife thinks that peer review is fundamental to the scientific process, ensuring findings are rigorously evaluated, interpretations are supported by data, methodology is transparent, and research is clear, reproducible, and impactful. In his experience, good peer reviews are constructive exchanges that strengthen scientific narratives and advance the field.
Dr. Khalife points out that a healthy peer-review system is one that is fair, timely, and respectful. It should prioritize transparency and should value diversity in expertise and background. The system should encourage reviewers to engage deeply with the science while also protecting their time and efforts through proper recognition. Importantly, healthy peer review is not about agreeing or disagreeing with findings but about evaluating the rigor, logic, and novelty of the work presented.
“I don’t see peer reviewing as an added burden but as part of my responsibility to the scientific community. It’s an opportunity to stay engaged with novel work and to reflect on how others tackle scientific problems. I treat peer review with the same attention as I would treat my own writing, so even with a busy schedule, I always keep allocated time for reviews,” says Dr. Khalife.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Priyam Pattnaik
Dr. Priyam Pattnaik serves as a neonatologist at Connecticut Children's Hospital and an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine. His research focuses on neonatal airway management, preterm infant complications, and lowering readmissions in extremely low gestational age neonates. He has contributed to discharge planning studies and NICU quality improvement, and engages in academic publishing and peer review to advance high-risk infant care. Currently, he develops evidence-based strategies to optimize discharge timing, resource use, and post-discharge outcomes, supporting safer hospital-to-home transitions and long-term health for vulnerable neonates.
TP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Pattnaik: Peer review is essential to ensure the credibility, accuracy, and quality of scientific research. It acts as a critical checkpoint, where experts in the field evaluate a study's methodology, findings, and relevance before publication. This process helps identify errors, biases, or unsupported conclusions, promoting scientific integrity and reliability. Peer review also encourages authors to improve clarity and rigor, enhancing the overall quality of the work. By filtering out flawed or unsubstantiated research, peer review safeguards the scientific literature and supports informed decision-making in clinical practice, policy, and future research. It is a cornerstone of academic and scientific advancement.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. Pattnaik: It can be time-consuming and is sometimes influenced by reviewer bias or conflicts of interest. Variability in reviewer expertise and inconsistent feedback can affect the fairness and quality of evaluations. To improve peer review, steps can include adopting open or double-blind review models, providing reviewer training, using standardized evaluation tools, and incorporating post-publication review. Increased recognition and incentives for reviewers, along with greater diversity in review panels, can further enhance the system’s fairness, efficiency, and reliability.
TP: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Dr. Pattnaik: Yes, disclosing COI is essential for maintaining transparency and trust in research. A COI can influence study design, data interpretation, and reporting, potentially leading to biased conclusions that favor a sponsor or personal interest. Even perceived COIs can undermine credibility. Full disclosure allows readers and reviewers to assess the objectivity and reliability of the findings, helping protect the integrity of scientific literature.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Srujan Ganta
Dr. Srujan Ganta is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California (RCHSD), specializing in care for pediatric and congenital heart conditions. His academic and training journey includes an undergraduate degree in Biochemistry and a medical degree with research distinction from the University of Alberta. He then completed a six-year integrated cardiothoracic surgery residency at the Mazankowski Heart Institute and Stollery Children’s Hospital, earning certification in Cardiac Surgery (FRCSC). He further refined his expertise with a fellowship in pediatric and adult congenital cardiac surgery at the Medical University of South Carolina. His clinical interests span congenital and adult congenital heart surgery, heart and lung transplantation, valve and coronary artery surgery, adult cardiac surgery, and cardiac electrophysiology (including pacemaker implantation). His current research focuses on impactful areas like surgical strategies for single ventricle palliation post-PDAS, optimizing Tetralogy of Fallot repairs, and novel techniques in TAPVR correction. Learn more about him here.
According to Dr. Ganta, when reviewing academic papers, a reviewer should first embody key qualities to drive scientific progress: act as a constructive partner (not just a critic), bring deep subject-matter expertise to assess work insightfully, and look beyond the text to grasp a study’s underlying value and potential impact. Curiosity, fairness, and open-mindedness are essential—reviewers must acknowledge their own biases, prioritize high-quality research regardless of its style or origin, and rigorously check for methodological flaws, logical gaps, or errors, all while conveying concerns respectfully. Ultimately, their role is to elevate research quality, uphold journal standards, and foster collaboration, innovation, and academic integrity.
In addition, Dr. Ganta reckons that reviewers must commit sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate papers and their references, managing their schedule to avoid rushing. Critically, they must guard against personal or institutional bias, ensuring assessments focus solely on a manuscript’s scientific merit and findings—protecting research integrity and contributing meaningfully to its advancement.
“TP should be commended for the high quality of their manuscripts which have provided well-tempered opinions on a wide range of topics within paediatric cardiovascular sciences. I review for TP as it aligns with my commitment to advancing high-quality, clinically relevant research that has impact globally. The journals’ ability to bridge bench to bedside research resonates with my interest in promoting evidence-based care. Contributing as a reviewer allows me to support fellow researchers while staying engaged with emerging developments in our profession. I value the opportunity to uphold scientific integrity and contribute to the growth of a respected research platform,” says Dr. Ganta.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Grigorios Petrousis
Dr. Grigorios Petrousis is a physician with an academic and clinical background in Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology. He obtained his medical degree in Greece and subsequently completed a Master of Science in Deontology and Ethics in Biomedical Sciences. He is currently a resident doctor at the Center for Digestive Health at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden, following prior clinical training in both Greece and Sweden. In parallel with his residency, he serves as a sub-investigator in clinical and observational studies, with research interests centered on Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and intestinal ultrasound. An active peer reviewer for several international medical journals, he integrates his clinical practice with academic endeavors, driven by a particular interest in gastroenterology, immune-mediated diseases, medical ethics, and the advancement of evidence-based medicine.
TP: Why do we need peer review?
Dr. Petrousis: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific integrity. It ensures that published research is not only methodologically sound but also clinically meaningful and ethically conducted. As clinicians, we rely on evidence to guide patient care; peer review provides a safeguard that this evidence is critically assessed before entering practice. Moreover, the process promotes dialogue between authors and reviewers, often strengthening the manuscript. For me, peer review reflects the collaborative spirit of medicine and science—ensuring that we build knowledge on a solid, reliable foundation.
TP: The burden of being a scientist/doctor is heavy. How do you allocate time to do peer review?
Dr. Petrousis: Balancing clinical duties, research, and personal life can indeed be challenging. I approach peer reviewing as both a responsibility and a learning opportunity. To manage time effectively, I usually schedule reviews during quieter periods, such as early mornings, weekends, or study blocks, when I can focus without clinical interruptions. I also remind myself that reviewing is not just giving back to the scientific community; it is a way to sharpen my own critical thinking, stay updated with new findings, and refine my academic writing. This mindset helps transform reviewing from a “burden” into an intellectually rewarding activity.
TP: Why is it important for a research to apply for institutional review board (IRB) approval?
Dr. Petrousis: IRB approval is essential to safeguard the rights, dignity, and well-being of research participants. Ethical oversight ensures that risks are minimized, informed consent is respected, and vulnerable populations are protected. Without this process, research risks losing credibility and public trust, and more importantly, it may expose patients to harm. From a scientific perspective, the omission of IRB approval undermines the validity of the work, making it unlikely to be published or accepted within the medical community. In my view, IRB approval is not a bureaucratic step, but rather a fundamental pillar of ethical and responsible research.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kyle L. MacQuarrie
Kyle L. MacQuarrie is a pediatric oncologist physician-scientist in Chicago, Illinois. He is a physician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, has a research lab at Stanley Manne Children’s Research Institute, and is an assistant professor of pediatrics with Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. His lab focuses on the intersection of pediatric cancer and developmental biology, with a particular interest in the organization of the genome and the nucleus and an eye towards identifying novel therapeutic targets and improved therapies. Recently, many of his projects have been investigating the role of geometric organization in the nucleus – both of chromosomes specifically and the genome more generally. In addition, he has an interest in mentoring and training the STEM workforce, especially future physician-scientists. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
TP: What role does peer review play in science?
Dr. MacQuarrie: I think of peer review as ideally having a rather grandiose role in science – it helps maintain the integrity and validity of scientific research by providing unbiased and fair feedback on science before it’s disseminated to the wider world. That, of course, is its role in a perfect world – scientific publication hasn’t always been subject to peer review, there’s a ‘reproducibility’ crisis in a lot of science, there’s a rise in preprinting manuscripts, and ‘unbiased’ and ‘fair’ certainly aren’t always the main focus of all reviewers. That being said, I do think helping ensure the validity of the scientific record, as it were, is a great aspirational goal for peer review.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Dr. MacQuarrie: Existing peer-review systems suffer from a couple of issues: occasionally frustratingly opaque decisions/decisions in a vacuum, lack of compensation for a task that can take a significant amount of time in a publishing system that often reaps substantial financial rewards (making the inequity apparent), and reviewers who may not review your work in a measured and fair manner (or give it the time and attention it deserves). Some of those issues I think could be alleviated if trainees were consistently trained in how to fairly and appropriately provide reviews; I like to reiterate to trainees that their job as a reviewer is not just to find the holes in a manuscript; it’s also to recognize what’s good about it! When it comes to issues like compensation, I do think it’s something the scientific and medical community – and scientific publishers – need to seriously grapple with. Medicine in particular is rather famous for expecting uncompensated work from those who have careers in it, but I just don’t think that’s sustainable from a systems perspective.
TP: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. MacQuarrie: In the present day, peer review is an integral part of being a good ‘scientific’ citizen. I hope others will help to peer review for me, just as I do for them - so there’s certainly an element of altruism there. In addition to that, I also find that peer reviewing ends up with me seeing a variety of manuscripts that I otherwise might not, so I appreciate the chance to broaden my horizons as well.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Mina Ranjbaran
Dr. Mina Ranjbaran, PhD, serves as an Associate Professor of Physiology in the Department of Physiology at the School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) in Tehran, Iran. Her research centers on neuroinflammation and its pivotal role in neurological disorders—with targeted focus on Alzheimer’s disease, sepsis-associated encephalopathy, and the use of stem cell-based models to unravel neural mechanisms. Boasting extensive expertise in cellular and molecular techniques tailored to neural research, she is a driving force in advancing scientific understanding through her impactful research initiatives. Beyond her own investigations, she is a dedicated peer reviewer for numerous international journals, where she upholds the scientific community’s standards by delivering critical yet constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Her overarching mission is to deepen the understanding of neural pathology and lay the groundwork for innovative strategies to advance neurological health. Learn more about her here.
According to Dr. Ranjbaran, peer review stands as the unshakable cornerstone of scientific quality assurance, acting as a rigorous "gatekeeping" process for research dissemination. Its core purpose is to ensure only work that is methodologically rigorous, scientifically valid, and ethically sound reaches the broader scientific community. By subjecting manuscripts to independent evaluation by field experts, peer review serves as a critical filter: it catches errors, mitigates biases, and rejects unsupported claims that could distort scientific knowledge. Beyond safeguarding integrity, it is vital for advancing progress—reviewers’ insights refine research, strengthen conclusions, and align findings with established evidence.
Dr. Ranjbaran thinks that reviewers should maintain objectivity and focus on scientific accuracy while providing constructive feedback. Key points include:
• Assessing the novelty and significance of the work
• Verifying methodological soundness and statistical validity
• Ensuring that conclusions are fully supported by the data
• Confirming that ethical standards are met
• Offering specific, respectful suggestions to help authors improve the manuscript, regardless of the final recommendation
Lastly, Dr. Ranjbaran would like to say a few words to her fellows, “Your careful evaluation and selfless effort are essential for maintaining the integrity and quality of science. Every thorough review strengthens the work, guides younger researchers, and ultimately advances knowledge and patient care. Your time and expertise are highly valued—thank you for your important contribution to the scientific community.”
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Smit Sibinga
Smit Sibinga graduated from the University of Groningen in 1965. He became a clinical haematologist in 1971, earned his PhD in 1972, and specialized in Transfusion Medicine in 1975. He also holds prestigious fellowships: FRCP in Transfusion Medicine from Edinburgh (1992) and FRCPath in Transfusion Medicine from London (1995). As Professor of International Development of Transfusion Medicine at the University of Groningen, he has focused on advancing Transfusion Medicine, quality systems, and management in economically restricted countries since 1980. His work in this area is conducted through organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH), and International Consortium for Blood Safety (ICBS). He founded and served as Medical Director of the Regional Blood Establishment Groningen (1976, northern Netherlands) and led the Sanquin Division Blood Establishment Noord Nederland in Groningen for 28 years (1976–2004). In 2001, he engaged in multiple consulting roles: IQM Consulting (international quality management in Transfusion Medicine), Dutch Consulting Services, the Academic Institute for International Development of Transfusion Medicine (Groningen), and AABB Consulting Services Division (Bethesda, MD, USA). In 1993, his blood establishment integrated the WHO Collaborating Centre for Blood Transfusion and the WFH International Hemophilia Training Centre (focused on cryoprecipitate). It later became the first ICBS Collaborating Centre in 2001—roles that ceased after his departure in 2004. Learn more about him here.
Speaking of the essential qualities of a reviewer, Dr. Sibinga points out that broad knowledge, rich experience, imagination, educational skills, and a proactive approach to preventing review delays are needed. He adds, “Be curious and willing to learn and extend your knowledge.”
Additionally, after emphasizing the importance of authors following reporting guidelines, Dr. Sibinga indicates that sharing the knowledge and experiences through publications should be done as uniformly as thinkable, to allow applicability and usability.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kaya Kuru
Prof. Kaya Kuru is an independent researcher at the School of Engineering and Computing, University of Lancashire. He received the B.Sc. degree from the National Defence University (Turkish Military Academy), the ADP/Major degree in computer engineering from Middle East Technical University (METU), the M.B.A. degree from Selçuk University, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in computer science/medical informatics from METU. He completed his postdoctoral studies with the School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, U.K. He has recently engaged in the implementation of numerous AI-based real-world systems within various funded projects. His research interests include the development of geo-distributed, responsible, ethical and autonomous intelligent systems using FL, ML, DL, and DRL with CPSs. Learn more about him here.
TP: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Prof. Kuru: A healthy peer-review system is one that ensures fairness, rigor, and transparency while helping authors improve their work in terms of quality, originality, and significance. Reviewers should provide clear, specific, and actionable feedback that enables authors to strengthen their manuscripts, delivered respectfully and within a reasonable timeframe. The journal system should also allow authors to respond meaningfully to reviewer comments and revise their work accordingly, while editors play an active role in mediating between reviewers and authors to maintain fairness and uphold the objectives of both the journal and the research.
TP: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Prof. Kuru: Although peer reviewing is anonymous and non-profitable, I find it deeply rewarding. It enriches my own research, keeps me up to date with developments in the discipline, and allows me to contribute meaningfully to the scientific community. As an active researcher, I benefit from the efforts of others who review my work; giving back to the system is an essential part of a healthy academic ecosystem and reflects my sense of professional responsibility.
TP: Is there any interesting story during review that you would like to share with us?
Prof. Kuru: I have had many experiences while reviewing more than 400 manuscripts, but one particularly memorable case stands out. The manuscript initially appeared poorly structured and unclear. However, as I examined it more closely, I realised that the authors had a genuinely innovative idea buried beneath the weak presentation. I provided detailed guidance on reorganising the content, strengthening the methodology, and articulating their contribution more clearly. In their revision, the authors transformed the manuscript into a high-quality piece of work. Witnessing such a significant improvement reaffirmed how meaningful constructive peer review can be, not only for ensuring quality, but also for supporting the advancement of valuable research. Seeing such substantial improvement was encouraging and reaffirmed the value of thoughtful, supportive peer review in helping meaningful research reach its full potential.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Masumi Kawashima
Masumi Kawashima is an Attending Pediatric Surgeon at Yao Tokusyukai General Hospital in Osaka, Japan. She earned her Ph.D. from Hiroshima University, where her research focused on genetic mutations in pediatric cancers—with a particular emphasis on neuroblastoma. At her current institution, she is engaged in both general pediatric surgical care and hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery, and is actively involved in advancing pediatric minimally invasive surgery. Her recent clinical focus centers on the application of intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging in pediatric surgical procedures. In 2024, she was honored with the Surgical Case Reports Outstanding Paper Award for her team’s work on using ICG fluorescence to assess testicular perfusion in pediatric testicular torsion. Learn more about her here.
Though relatively new to peer review, Dr. Kawashima emphasizes that effective reviewers need expertise in the field and clinical experience to assess a study's validity and real-world relevance—especially in pediatric surgery, where patient insights are crucial. She also values constructive, sincere feedback that respects authors' efforts. She particularly stresses the importance of a strong discussion section, which should clearly highlight key takeaways and future research directions to make the work engaging and impactful. In her reviews, she strives to help authors enhance this depth and narrative.
Dr. Kawashima's primary motivation for anonymous, unpaid peer review is contributing to the advancement of pediatric surgery. She finds it intellectually rewarding to evaluate new research and promote high-quality, impactful publications. As a practicing pediatric surgeon, she feels a professional duty to ensure studies are methodologically sound and clinically relevant, safeguarding research that guides pediatric care. Additionally, peer review serves as professional development, keeping her updated on emerging trends and deepening her expertise—ultimately benefiting her patients and creating a cycle of learning and contribution.
“I chose to review for TP because it is a well-established and respected journal that covers a broad range of pediatric conditions, from the neonatal period through adolescence, which aligns well with my specialty in pediatric surgery. When I receive a review request, I carefully consider whether the manuscript’s topic matches my area of expertise and clinical experience before deciding to accept the assignment,” says Dr. Kawashima.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Jun Hirokawa
Jun Hirokawa is affiliated with the Miyazaki Dental Welfare Center and the Miyazaki City Dental Association in Japan. His daily clinical practice focuses on providing general anesthesia and deep sedation for dental treatment in pediatric patients with intellectual and developmental disabilities—an area closely aligned with special needs dentistry. His research centers on anesthesiology, with a specific focus on perioperative management in vulnerable patient populations. Recent research projects include investigating the effects of anesthesia and surgical stress on perioperative insulin resistance, as well as exploring the influence of electrocardiographic filtering on intraoperative monitoring and signal interpretation. By integrating his clinical experience in special needs dentistry with an anesthesiologist’s perspective, he aims to enhance the safety, physiological rigor, and clinical reliability of anesthetic care in dental settings.
Dr. Hirokawa views peer review not as an optional add-on, but as an essential part of the scientific research process. Raw findings alone lack scientific credibility; only through rigorous, objective evaluation of methodology, interpretation, and ethics can they become reliable evidence that others can trust, build on, and apply clinically. He highlights a major strength: reviewers, as fellow researchers, share the same challenges and effort, enabling them to offer empathetic, constructive guidance rather than harsh criticism—creating a positive, collaborative dynamic between authors and reviewers.
Dr. Hirokawa considers objectivity the cornerstone of peer review, as only a transparent, rigorous evaluation can establish credible scientific evidence.
Manuscripts often align with a reviewer’s expertise, where intuitively appealing results may lack sufficient evidence. Objectivity requires deliberately countering this bias—despite the natural temptation to favor promising findings—since usefulness and truth are distinct. The reviewer’s duty is to advance findings toward truth. To stay objective, he approaches manuscripts with deliberate skepticism, rigorously questioning every claim, checking data-conclusion alignment, and identifying logical gaps. He then adopts the authors’ perspective to offer constructive improvement suggestions rather than mere criticism.
“I have the utmost respect for all reviewers who devote a significant amount of their time, on a voluntary basis, solely to improving the quality of scientific research. Thanks to their dedication, valuable findings achieved through the painstaking efforts of researchers can be refined, validated, and ultimately transformed into reliable medical evidence that benefits countless patients. I sincerely hope that reviewers will continue their essential work as supporters of researchers around the world, contributing quietly but decisively to the advancement of science,” says Dr. Hirokawa.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kamsiyochukwu S. Daniel
Kamsiyochukwu S. Daniel is a Registered Dietitian and nutrition researcher dedicated to advancing the health of mothers and children. She specializes in maternal and pediatric nutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and autism spectrum disorder. She currently serves as a Clinical Pediatric Dietitian at Texas Children’s Hospital caring for children with complex medical and developmental needs. She holds a Master of Public Health (Coordinated Program in Dietetics) from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and has published in high-impact journals, with recent work addressing iodine deficiency and developing nutrition-related screening tools for children with autism. She has presented at national and international conferences and is an active peer reviewer for multiple journals. Her career bridges clinical practice, research, and public health, all aimed at improving nutritional outcomes for children and families and advancing knowledge in pediatric nutrition.
TP: What are the limitations of the existing peer-review system?
Kamsiyochukwu: The peer-review system is essential for maintaining scientific quality, but it has several limitations. These include variation in reviewer expertise, inconsistent review quality, long turnaround times, and the presence of unconscious bias. Reviewers are also rarely compensated or recognized for their time, which can affect engagement and efficiency. To improve the system, journals can offer structured reviewer training, use standardized review checklists, and involve editors more closely in resolving major discrepancies between reviews. Journals can also improve the process by assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose expertise closely aligns with the topic and by adopting more transparent peer-review practices, such as publishing reviewer comments alongside accepted papers. Recognizing reviewers’ contributions through certificates, awards, or formal acknowledgment can also encourage high-quality participation and accountability.
TP: Biases are inevitable in peer review. How do you minimize any potential biases during review?
Kamsiyochukwu: I minimize bias by evaluating the manuscript based solely on the scientific content rather than the authors or their affiliations. An initial full read-through helps me ensure that early assumptions do not influence the final assessment. Structured criteria, such as standardized checklists and evidence-based benchmarks are used to guide my comments and maintain objectivity. Personal preferences for specific methodologies or research approaches are set aside to focus on the rigor, clarity, and validity of the work as presented. When uncertainty arises, my feedback is grounded in the data and aligned with established scientific standards. The goal is to provide a fair, balanced, and constructive review that supports both scientific integrity and author development.
TP: Is it important for authors to disclose Conflict of Interest (COI)?
Kamsiyochukwu: COI disclosure is critical because it preserves transparency and protects the credibility of research. Conflicts of interest, financial, professional, or personal do not automatically invalidate a study, but failing to disclose them can undermine trust. COIs can influence study design, framing of research questions, interpretation of results, and how findings are presented, oftentimes in favor of the sponsor of the research. When disclosed, reviewers and readers can appropriately interpret the work in context. Proper reporting allows the scientific community to assess potential influence while still evaluating the research on its methodological merits. Ultimately, full COI transparency strengthens scientific integrity and safeguards the peer-review process.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Kakusho Chigusa Nakajima-Ohyama
Dr. Kakusho Chigusa Nakajima-Ohyama is a Professor at the Department of Neuropsychiatry, Nagoya City University East Medical Center, specializing in General Hospital Psychiatry and Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. Her core research interests span pharmacological interventions for delirium and eating disorders, suicide prevention, psychoneuroimmunology, and the intersection of psychiatry and Buddhist philosophy—with a focus on clinical and basic research that directly elevates real-world patient care. Beyond clinical work, she actively leads educational activities for medical staff and students. Learn more about her here.
Dr. Nakajima-Ohyama believes that the most vital reviewer qualities are scientific integrity and constructiveness. Reviewers must objectively evaluate methodological soundness and data transparency without bias, but merely pointing out flaws is insufficient. A strong reviewer acts as a mentor, delivering constructive feedback to help authors refine their work. Even for rejected papers, the review should foster the author’s future growth and drive overall scientific advancement.
According to Dr. Nakajima-Ohyama, data sharing is critical to upholding scientific transparency and reproducibility. As a reviewer, access to raw data would enable far deeper, more accurate assessments of a manuscript’s validity. However, there is a difficult dilemma in balancing open science and privacy protection, especially in Japan, where a stark gap exists between global standards and local reality. International systems prompt data sharing with dedicated repositories, but many Japanese researchers select "No" due to strict domestic regulations mandating data destruction after a set period (e.g., five years) to protect personal information—even though aggregated, anonymous data has nearly no re-identification risk with Japan’s isolated electronic medical records. Ironically, case reports (higher patient identification risk) face less ethical scrutiny than large anonymous datasets. Data destruction negates future verification and reproducibility, contradicting scientific integrity. We need a global consensus to encourage secure data sharing for scientific progress, rather than enforcing destruction out of privacy fear.
“I choose to review for TP because I respect the journal's commitment to bridging the gap between basic science and clinical practice. As a clinician-researcher, I find great value in the journal’s scope, which aligns with my own goal of applying scientific findings to bedside care. Contributing to the quality control of such a growing journal, now indexed in PubMed, gives me a sense of responsibility and fulfillment in supporting the global medical community,” says Dr. Nakajima-Ohyama.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
Matthew Dapas
Matthew Dapas, PhD, is a Research Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. He is a computational geneticist specializing in the genetic heterogeneity of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. His prior research has included characterizing genetic subtypes of polycystic ovary syndrome and describing how genetic risk for asthma correlates with other medical conditions. His current research integrates single-cell and spatial transcriptomics analysis with genetic data to study the origins of autoimmune conditions. He is the Principal Investigator on a study examining the relationship between genetic variation and immune cell gene expression in scleroderma. He also teaches Scientific Writing in the University of Chicago's Biomedical Informatics and Precision Health programs. Learn more about him here.
TP: What do you regard as a healthy peer-review system?
Dr. Dapas: The peer-review system is imperfect. The work can be demanding to an extent that the lack of compensation feels absurd—yet introducing financial incentives could create unintended consequences that undermine the system's integrity. I don't have the solution, but I believe transparency greatly promotes the health of the system. Journals should set clear expectations for both authors and reviewers. Reviewers should be forthcoming about the limits of their expertise—what they are and are not qualified to evaluate. And anonymized peer-review comments should at least be published alongside papers. I think openness creates accountability, allows readers to understand how a paper evolved through the review process, and helps make the whole process more trustworthy.
TP: What do reviewers have to bear in mind while reviewing papers?
Dr. Dapas: Two things. First, bad science can cause real harm. As peer reviewers, we take on a serious responsibility to defend the public and the scientific record against flawed work. That's not a trivial obligation. Second, and relatedly: if you are not qualified to evaluate a paper, don't review it. I've been on the receiving end of uninformed reviews—critiques that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the methodology or domain. Those experiences are frustrating, but they also motivate me to be more rigorous and honest about my own limitations when I review.
TP: Peer reviewing is often anonymous and non-profitable. What motivates you to do so?
Dr. Dapas: Sometimes a paper is directly relevant to my own research, so engaging with it deeply as a reviewer is genuinely informative. Other times, I recognize that my particular expertise makes me unusually well-suited to evaluate a manuscript—and that feels like a responsibility worth honoring. Occasionally, a paper is simply interesting, and reviewing becomes an opportunity for a focused deep dive into a topic. I won't pretend it never feels like menial volunteer work, but ultimately, it's a public service. Helping maintain the integrity of the scientific enterprise I depend on—and I would argue we all depend on—matters to me.
(by Lareina Lim, Brad Li)
